NRA News Feeds
Researcher David Kopel recently highlighted the problems with these programs in a recent issue of America's 1st Freedom. The guns that are turned in don't come from criminals, many of them are inoperable, and studies have shown that crime rates don't drop in areas that conduct "buyback" programs.
If local law enforcement and politicians really want to make a difference, they should be focusing on getting criminals off the streets, not holding another worthless "buyback." All too often, though, the focus is on good results in the media, not good results on the street.
I also hope that in 2009 you'll continue to help fight to keep your Second Amendment rights safe, healthy and secure. I can't tell you exactly what legislation will be filed in Congress, or the exact date the first hearing will be held, but I can tell you this: The gun-control forces in this country feel emboldened right now, and they will be targeting the Second Amendment at every level next year.
From city councils to the halls of the U.S. Capitol, those who want to restrict your Right to Keep and Bear Arms are going to be hard at work. We've got to work even harder. So enjoy the holiday season, but get ready to work hard in the new year. 2008 was an incredible year for gun owners, and with dedication and perseverance we can make sure 2009 isn't a nightmare.
It all started when a pair of armed robbers entered a liquor store with crime on their minds. One clerk, a legal gun owner, fired at the pair and killed one of his assailants.
Jim Wallace, the executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, said, "It sounds like a clear-cut case of self-defense, which is what the Second Amendment is really all about. The (clerk) was properly, lawfully in possession of a firearm. It sounds like a win-win situation."
The incredible quote came from John Rosenthal, head of the anti-gun group "Stop Handgun Violence." He told the local media, "It's a good thing the store clerk was licensed and trained and prevented this heinous crime. If it was all legal, power to the guy."
So John Rosenthal thinks armed self-defense is a good thing. I'd like to believe he's telling the truth, but there's something fishy about his statement. If Rosenthal really supports self-defense, then why doesn't he support something as simple as a "shall-issue" licensing system in the state of Massachusetts? As things stand (in part because of Rosenthal's support for gun control), police chiefs across the state have the power to deny gun licenses to anyone they want, for any (or no) reason at all.
I'd like to think Rosenthal has seen the light, but I think it's more likely he's seen the future. The Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment protects an individual right, the American people support the Second Amendment, and gun banners like Rosenthal are fighting to stay relevant, even if that means abandoning or moderating their positions. It's another sign that we're winning, even in Massachusetts.
But instead of simply promising he won't support new gun-control legislation, which would actually mean something, gun owners get empty statements of support for "common-sense gun safety laws."
Is a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition a common-sense gun safety law? What about a ban on Right-to-Carry? A ban on the most popular sporting rifles in America? These are just some of the laws Barack Obama has supported in his short political career.
Millions of American gun owners disagree that these laws have anything to do with common sense, and that's why they're exercising their Second Amendment freedom now. They're afraid they may not be able to do so as freely or fully in the future.
Given President-elect Obama's rhetoric versus his record, gun owners have every reason to be concerned.
Every now and then, the national media will report on the drug violence plaguing Mexico, and will try to place the blame on American gun shows or gun owners. But when grenades are flying through the air in Monterrey, I think it's safe to say the law-abiding gun owners in the United States aren't to blame.
So who is? As the Associated Press points out, corruption is widespread, and may reach the highest levels of government. If drug gangs are getting things like grenades and fully automatic rifles, you can't help but wonder about the corruption in the Mexican military as well.
The next time the national media try to say that Mexico's violence is the fault of the Second Amendment, ask yourself why some reporters are so eager to blame U.S. gun owners instead of the people responsible for the drug trade, the corruption and the violence.
What's the difference between a pistol and a surface-to-air missile? None, at least if you're a member of the mainstream media. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin was recently on PBS, and made the ludicrous claim that the Heller decision somehow has something to do with tanks and SAMs. Toobin went on to say that gun control wasn't an issue for voters this year, because "swing voters don't care about it".
As the Media Research Center's Tim Graham points out, maybe it had less to do with the feelings of the electorate and more to do with the feelings of reporters. After all, we know they never bothered to ask Barack Obama and John McCain about the Second Amendment, and not one question about the Second Amendment or the Heller decision was asked during any of the presidential (or vice presidential) debates.
As the increase in gun sales demonstrates, there are millions of Americans who care about their firearm freedom, even if the talking heads at CNN and PBS ignore the issue.
Barack Obama's gun control agenda is back, but with weasel words you should know about. Until now, the website expressed Obama's support for a semi-auto ban this way: "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets". But now Obama revised the ban to read: "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent". Why the change? Their own platform exposed their ignorance. Obama's firearm banners found out that American soldiers don't carry AR-15s on the battlefield-the legal civilian semiautomatic firearms that Obama wants to ban. As long as the incoming Obama administration supports a semi-auto ban-or any gun ban-it's clear they don't care about your Second Amendment freedom. Obama's website and promises can change all he likes, but it's change that gun owners should never believe in.
Back in June of 1999, Holder told ABC's Charles Gibson that amending a Senate bill that mandated background checks on private sales of firearms at gun shows would place children "at risk". The amendment passed, the violent crime rate has fallen from 523 crimes per 100,000 people to 466.9 violent crimes per 100,000, and yet we still hear Barack Obama and Joe Biden declare a need to "end the gun show loophole". There is no gun show loophole because there are no special laws regarding firearms transactions at gun shows. The law applies no matter where you're buying or selling a firearm.
Eric Holder has also supported, on the record, denying 2nd Amendment Rights on a government's "watch list", even though federal officials have stated that not every individual on the list is suspected of criminal behavior. And he's gone even further than pushing for a ban on private sales of firearms at gun shows to a blanket ban on the private sale of firearms.
Now that Mr. Holder is Obama's choice for Attorney General, I hope he will demonstrate the wisdom to go after people committing violent crimes in this country, and not waste our resources and money by promoting another gun control bill that affects only the law-abiding, but his past record and rhetoric give gun owners one more reason to be skeptical of the incoming administration.
Gun owners should also be thankful that across the country, politicians ran for office as friends of the Second Amendment, not gun control. You didn't see many candidates touting their Brady Campaign endorsement. In fact, most of them didn't mention support from gun control groups. Candidates endorsed by the NRA, on the other hand, were proud of that endorsement. We're winning the battle of public opinion, which is just as important as the legislative and legal fights.
Finally, we should be thankful for our fellow NRA members. Working together and speaking as one, we have accomplished amazing victories. Without a doubt, there are tough days ahead of us. Together we can face those challenges. Together, we can fight to restore, protect, and preserve our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. On this Thanksgiving holiday, I'm thankful for you.
The HSUS says a new study from the CDC shows that those who eat harvested game have elevated levels of lead in their blood. But here's what HSUS isn't telling you.
According to that CDC study, which took place in North Dakota, the hunters and their families who ate harvested game had lower lead levels than the average American. In fact, the North Dakota State Department of Health says the highest lead level of an adult in the study was still below the CDC accepted lead level for a child, and was much lower than the CDC accepted lead level for an adult.
HSUS is once again relying on scare tactics to advance its agenda, and gun owners once again have truth on their side.
Tell that to the student at Middle Tennessee State University who was recently the victim of an attempted robbery on campus. The 22-year-old student was walking to her car late one evening when a man with a gun tried to rob her. Unarmed, she still did her best to fight back, but the robber got off one shot.
Thankfully, the bullet hit the student's purse and not her. But ask yourself … if it was your daughter walking to her car in the dark, would you rather she be able to defend herself with a purse ... or a pistol?
At the presidential level, Barack Obama ran a campaign designed to appeal to gun owners. He spent millions of dollars saturating the heartland with flyers pledging to support the Second Amendment, promising no difference between himself and John McCain on the issue. Given Obama's anti-gun record, gun owners have every reason to be skeptical of his promises.
In fact, I don't believe President-elect Obama will be able to keep those promises to gun owners. We know there are many in Congress who can't wait to unleash their gun control bills. Will the next president stand up to those who want to push gun bans and more through the House and Senate?
We've been down this road before, and the NRA stands ready once again to defend the constitutional Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American to keep and bear arms.
And as this litmus test shows, they have every intention of putting together an administration that is hostile to firearms ownership and to Second Amendment rights.
One of their first official acts is to make a list of gun owners among their own employees. It proves where their hearts are. It shows what their philosophy is. This is more proof that this administration is coming after our freedom and NRA stands ready.
We can't wait until Carolyn McCarthy or Chuck Schumer introduces a gun ban in Congress. Now's the time for us to talk to our elected representatives and remind them of the importance of our Second Amendment rights. We need to remind them that they represent the people, not the gun-ban lobby comprised of big-dollar foundations. And we should remind them what happened the last time a semi-auto ban passed through Congress. In case they forgot, let them know that the Clinton Gun Ban was responsible for huge losses for the Democratic majority in Congress.
We have strong support for the Second Amendment among some Democrats in Congress, but they will be under enormous pressure from Speaker Pelosi and others to go along with gun control proposals. Those representatives who stand with gun owners will deserve our support. Those who abandon us? They'll soon learn, once again, that Americans don't like politicians messing with their freedoms.
In particular, gun owners should be watching the names discussed for attorney general, secretary of state and head of the ATF.
The attorney general will have a lot of power in our post-Heller world, especially with the number of Second Amendment-related cases working their way through the court system. The Secretary of State will be working closely with the members of the United Nations pushing for an Arms Trade Treaty. And of course, an anti-gun ATF director could make life miserable for gun owners, even those working inside the agency.
It's not a matter of figuring out if Obama's anti-gun or not. We already know he is. What we're looking for now are signs of how aggressive he will be in trying to enact his gun control policies, and these appointments may give us real clues.
Just look at a couple of the things Obama has proposed: a 500 percent increase on excise taxes for guns and ammunition, and a ban on gun stores within five miles of a school or a park. Those two measures wouldn't just decimate the firearms industry, they would kill it. That, in turn, would have a drastic effect on our military, because the same companies that sell guns to civilians are also the ones selling guns to the government. I wonder how Obama would feel about a multi-billion dollar bailout of the firearms industry, because that's what just two of his proposals would require. That's not hype or hyperbole. It's just the truth, and the truth is Obama's judgment is as bad as his Second Amendment record.
very clear choice of a pro-Second Amendment versus an anti-Second
Amendment Presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin versus
Barack Obama and Joe Biden represents a stark contrast for the future
of our freedom.
In that choice, one fact is foremost:
The next president, by filling inevitable vacancies on the U.S.
Supreme Court, will determine the continued existence of our Right To
Keep and Bear Arms.
Click here to read the entire article.
The six-figure sum means that the NRA can continue to devote more resources towards other court fights, including our lawsuit against the San Francisco Housing Authority over its gun ban in public housing. And when you donate to the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, you can help us take other anti-gun cities and towns to court as well.
I wrote:
Back in 1999, Obama called for a laundry list of gun control, including a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition. He called for bans of affordable handguns. He called for mandated "smart gun" technology. He demanded that FFLs not be allowed to maintain their business within five miles of a school or a park. In short, he wanted to regulate the Second Amendment out of existence.
To my knowledge, not one reporter has asked Obama about the positions he took back then. Nor have they asked him about the position he’s taking now, "supporting" the Second Amendment in speeches while refusing to sign on to the congressional amicus brief opposing the District of Columbia’s gun ban. Fifty-five of his fellow senators signed on to that brief, but Obama still pretends the issue is about "local control," not constitutional rights.
When the mainstream media refuses to ask a presidential frontrunner about his position on an issue, you can’t help but wonder why. When the issue is the Second Amendment, it can’t be because the press doesn’t like what Obama has to say. Maybe it’s just that they don’t want you to hear it.
Here it is, just days before Election Day, and the mainstream media is still covering for Barack Obama when it comes to your Second Amendment rights. Their actions are just as bad as Obama’s position.
The Cleveland Plain-Dealer says if people want to "voluntarily" register their guns, they can... but aren't required to do so?
If that's the case, then why is the city of Cleveland trying to prosecute gun owner Damon Wells for "possession of an unregistered handgun"? The group Buckeye Firearms Association knows all about that case. It makes you wonder why the Cleveland Plain-Dealer seems to know nothing at all about it. If there is no longer a requirement to register your guns with the city, how can the city be prosecuting someone for failing to register their firearm?
I think the Plain-Dealer owes its readers the plain truth in another story.
The biggest case the Supreme Court has handled in years doesn't merit a single question from the likes of Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer. The vice presidential debate was also devoid of questions about your gun rights, thanks to moderator Gwen Ifill.
The American people deserve tough questions and honest answers from the candidates. Here's the question we should have heard in at least one of the debates.
Members of Congress had the opportunity to sign on to a brief in support of the Second Amendment several months ago. Two hundred and fifty members of the House, 55 members of the Senate and the president of the Senate signed that brief. Now, both of you say you support the Second Amendment, but only one of you signed that brief. Senator McCain, why did you decide to sign the brief, and Senator Obama, why did you decide not to sign on to the brief?
Just a few months ago, Barack Obama had the opportunity to not just talk the talk, but walk the walk when it came to supporting your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's too bad the debate moderators didn't ask the question.
In the battleground state of Nevada, for instance, the group ACORN has been accused of voter fraud after a voter registration drive turned up instances of new voters with fake names—including the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys.
Just two years ago in Washington state, ACORN submitted 1,800 voter registration forms. All but six of them were fraudulent. Washington's secretary of state called it the worst case of voter fraud in state history.
It's time to tell ACORN we're not going to stand for voter fraud. And it's up to all of us to keep our eyes out for possible voter fraud where we live.
Second Amendment scholar David Hardy is shedding light on Obama's time with the Joyce Foundation, the anti-gun organization that funneled tens of millions of dollars to gun control groups while Obama served on its board of directors.
It turns out Obama didn't have a problem with the Joyce Foundation buying issues of law reviews and turning them into gun-control propaganda pieces. Yet Obama, who taught a constitutional law seminar at the University of Chicago, keeps saying he'd never do anything to hurt the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's too late for rhetoric like that. He already has hurt the Second Amendment, and he'd do a lot more if given the chance.
Read David Hardy's article, and be sure to pass it around. We can't rely on the mainstream media to get the word out about Obama's hostility towards the Second Amendment. It's up to us this year.
See, this new study found that there's no link between gun shows and suicides and homicides. In fact, the researchers found that in Texas, the homicide rate actually dropped after gun shows were held. So of course, the mainstream media isn't going to touch this story … not when they want to ban gun shows.
Bad guys get their guns illegally. Gun owners have always known this, but it's nice to see it backed up by academics -even if the media will ignore this story in favor of the latest study on the calories in "The Joy of Cooking."
Obama has leased a television channel on the Dish Network. It's all Obama, all the time.
But while Obama's buying his own channel, he's still trying to stop television stations around the country from airing NRA ads that expose his radical anti-gun record.
Of course, Obama is free to spend his mountain of campaign cash on billboards or TV or radio ads, or even his own channel on the Dish Network. But his idea of freedom of speech doesn't extend to you or me.
While he's saturating the airwaves, he's trying to silence your voice.
It's just one of the many new ways anti-gunners are trying to obstruct, delay, tax and deny your Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the wake of the Heller decision.
The good news is that the NRA found out about this attempt, and we're fighting the anti-freedom politicians in Pittsburgh. If you hear about any similar attempts to regulate the Second Amendment out of your town, don't hesitate to call the NRA so we can fight for you as well.
Let me say that again. There is nothing false or inaccurate about the TV ad. The Obama campaign knows they can't win without deceiving gun owners, and the only way to do that is to stop NRA's voice from being heard.
We've sent our own letter to these television stations, defending the ad and fact-checking the Obama campaign. It's sad but not unexpected that Obama would try to shut us up.
He's already shown he's no friend of the Second Amendment. Now he's showing he's no friend of the First, either.
There's no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama's supporters would rather keep you in the dark about his Second Amendment record. Because it reveals how extreme and how out-of-touch he is with his fellow Americans.
This election- and your Right to Keep and Bear Arms- is too vital not to know the truth. Arm yourself with the facts, spread the word about Obama's stance on the Second Amendment, and keep reading for more information between now and Election Day.
The Chicago Tribune reports that Obama has set up a rapid response network designed to strong-arm radio and television stations that dare to run programming that may be critical of "The One." The campaign even provides "talking points" for followers of Obama to use when they protest the coverage of their candidate.
At best, this bullying of the media is an affront to the spirit of the First Amendment. But do we really believe that if Obama were president, he'd suddenly give up this tactic?
Obama has as much (or maybe as little) respect for the First Amendment as he does for the Second Amendment. For a guy who claims to be a constitutional scholar, he doesn't seem to have a beginner's grasp on the Bill of Rights.
Barack Obama needs to read the papers. He might learn a thing or two, like the fact that armed citizens recently stopped a terrorist attack in Jerusalem. According to Israel Radio, a man in a car plowed into a crowd, injuring more than a dozen before he was shot and killed by armed citizens.
Imagine a world where all of us are reduced to prey for predatory criminals and lethal terrorists. It's a vision Barack Obama endorses, and that would make us all less safe.
Barack Obama's out with a new radio ad designed to deceive hunters, sportsmen and gun owners. The ad claims that gun owners have nothing to worry about, that as president Obama would not affect their Second Amendment rights.
Of course, the ad doesn't mention that Obama supports things like a ban on handguns, an extension of the Clinton Gun Ban, a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition, a ban on the most common hunting ammunition, a ban on gun stores located within five miles of a school or a park, and prosecuting people who use a gun for self-defense in their home.
The ad also doesn't mention the millions of dollars Obama steered towards gun-control groups when he was a member of the Joyce Foundation's board of directors, or his lack of support for increased penalties for those convicted of shooting near a public school.
That's Obama's real record, and that's why he can't tell America’s sportsmen and gun owners the truth.
"We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment."
Politicians like Barack Obama and Joe Biden don't believe in protecting our firearms industry from lawsuits. In fact, they've both made it clear that they would target our nation's firearms manufacturers. Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and Obama praised the junk lawsuits filed by anti-gun mayors on behalf of the Brady Campaign. Obama went even further, calling for a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition, which would kill off the firearms industry in this country.
We know that the anti-gunners have no problems turning to the courts when they can't get their way legislatively. They've tried it before, and if possible, they'll try it again. That's why it's so important to make sure the legislative protections against these junk lawsuits remain in place. If they go away, our nation's firearms manufacturers will soon disappear as well.
"Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities against violent individuals and the drug culture. We call for education in constitutional rights in schools, and we support the option of firearms training in federal programs serving senior citizens and women. We urge immediate action to review the automatic denial of gun ownership to returning members of the Armed Forces who have suffered trauma during service to their country."
It's no coincidence that this portion of the platform starts out discussing the defense of ourselves, and ends by calling for protecting the rights of those who have defended this country. As Americans, we believe in our inalienable right to life. We believe in preserving our inalienable right to live as free men, in a free country. Those ideals are at the heart of not just the Second Amendment, but also our nation. Contrast that message with Obama's platform:
"We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun-show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban ..."
The difference couldn't be more clear. One platform speaks of strengthening our Second Amendment rights; the other speaks of destroying it. If I were a gun-owning Democrat, I'd be asking my party leaders why they have so little respect for me.
Tomorrow I'll have more of the GOP platform plank on the Second Amendment.
Here's the first part of the GOP platform plank on the Second Amendment:
"We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the
Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We applaud federal court rulings affirming that right, particularly the Supreme Court's Heller decision, and we assert the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. We call on the next president to appoint judges who will similarly respect the Constitution."
Antedated the Constitution. That means the Republicans understand that our Right to Keep and Bear Arms wasn't granted by our Founding Fathers. It's not a right given to us by our government, able to be taken away on a whim. It was a pre-existing right protected by the Constitution. It's a distinction that anti-gunners don't get. They'd gladly strip you of your human right of self-defense, because they can't bear to see you bear arms.
Check back tomorrow for more of the GOP platform plank on the Second Amendment.
Seven years ago, our country watched in horror as we were attacked on our soil. Today, let us pay tribute to the men and women who braved the smoke and flames of the World Trade Center in order to rescue those in harm's way, the soldiers who battled the fires at the Pentagon, and the folks like you and me who fought back in the Pennsylvania skies. Folks like Walter Weaver, one of the thousands of Americans who embodied courage, honor, and duty on that dark day.
Officer Weaver was a member of the New York Police Department, and an NRA member as well. Just 30 years old, he died in the World Trade Center while trying to rescue the victims trapped in the rubble. His family, keeping his memory alive, donated his service pistol to the NRA, and we have enshrined it in our museum as a tribute to his courage and the courage of his fellow first responders.
The World War I fighter pilot and Medal of Honor winner Eddie Rickenbacker once said, "Courage is doing what you’re afraid to do. There can be no courage unless you're scared."
The heroes of 9/11 undoubtedly were afraid. But they rose above their fear and reached the height of bravery in defense and support of their fellow Americans. The greatest tribute we can give to those who lost their lives seven years ago is to strive for that kind of courage in our lives.
On this day, we remember Walter Weaver and all the brave Americans and NRA members who lost their lives. God bless those men and womem, God keep their families in His heart, and God bless the U.S.A.
These college administrators believe that adults should be treated like adults, which is refreshing to hear considering so many college administrators are determined that students and faculty be treated like children when it comes to Right-to-Carry.
Just as the heads of these colleges believe that "moderation and responsibility" should be the standard for college students when it comes to drinking, I believe that responsibility also applies to those Right-to-Carry holders who happen to be college students, professors or employees of a university.
I'd like to think the administrators that want to encourage responsible behavior would get on board with extending Right-to-Carry onto college campuses, but I'm not holding my breath. Still, if these education professionals are wanting to change the law to lower the drinking age, why on earth would they not extend an existing law to cover responsible gun owners who have reason to be on their campus?
Well, the "Excellence in Recovery" committee may be giving Nagin an award, but the National Rifle Association is hopefully giving the mayor a headache. The NRA's lawsuit against the mayor continues, and until those firearms are returned, we're going to continue to demand accountability and responsibility from the man in charge of New Orleans.
It wouldn't solve every problem facing the local leaders in Vallejo, but I think Solano County, where Vallejo is located, should treat concealed-carry as "Shall-Issue," rather than keeping the very restrictive policies that are currently in place. Residents of Vallejo have the same right to self-defense as every other American, and with the exodus of police officers, it's more important than ever that those citizens have the tools to defend themselves and their families.
After the Heller decision came down, Obama claimed the Court had sided with him. The Supreme Court decision struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun ban, and has opened the door to challenges across the country, including in Obama's home city of Chicago. If Obama truly agrees with the Supreme Court, why has he never done a thing to help Chicago residents who've been stripped of their Second Amendment rights?
Obama has stated that Right-to-Carry makes society more dangerous, despite overwhelming evidence that Right-to-Carry lowers crime rates. He's supported bans on handguns, bans on semi-automatic firearms, and bans on gun stores within five miles of a school or a park. And he seems pretty proud of those positions. Which leads me to believe when Obama claims to be pro Second Amendment, he's simply being hypocritical and not straight forward.
His running mate, Joe Biden, is a career anti-gun politician. Remember 1994? Remember those dark days when the Clinton administration and their cronies in Congress banned semi-automatic firearms based entirely on cosmetic features? Guess who was one of those most responsible for that gun ban? None other than Joe Biden.
Biden has consistently voted against your Second Amendment rights as a U.S. senator, and Obama's made it clear that his vision of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is meaningless. This pair, if elected, would be the biggest threat to your firearm freedoms in decades, and that's with the recent decision in the Heller case. We can't afford to stay home on Election Day, and we can't afford to stay silent between now and then. It's our job to speak up and speak out about the Obama/Biden ticket so that every gun owner is aware of what's at stake ... nothing less than the continued exercise of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
they'll change their mind and leave it alone.
The good news for gun owners is that we do have access to his anti-gun record, and we're making it public. NRA-ILA has a whole section of its website devoted to telling the truth about Obama's brutal attacks on your Second Amendment rights. You can find it at www.nraila.org/obama. Obama may be able to hide his paperwork from the press, but he can't hide his record from gun owners.
"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons
ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."
Obama's supporters are prepared to end private transactions of firearms and to ban entire classes of firearms in the name of "common sense." They are prepared to tell residents of Chicago that they do not possess the same inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that their fellow Americans in Cheyenne enjoy. Yet they tell us the Second Amendment is "an important part of the American tradition."
It's all well and good to say that states have powers reserved to them. It is an outrage to suggest the role of state legislatures is to fight over the crumbs that are left after the federal government has taken away as much of your rights as it deems "reasonable." Chicago and Cheyenne may indeed require different laws dealing with traffic, or zoning for skyscrapers, and so on. But laws that say different Americans have different rights? That's not federalism, that's feudalism.
We have a major political party treating one of our constitutional rights like it is just some relic of history, to be preserved on paper but serving no practical purpose today. If this is how we treat the Second, how long before we treat the First, or the Fourth, or the Fourteenth the same way?
The Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is a right "guaranteed to all Americans." It is inconceivable that a major political party would choose to believe that statement is false.
"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."
So the Second Amendment is now "an important part of the American tradition," subject to as many rules and regulations as they deem "reasonable"?
No! It is not merely tradition. It is our birthright! Inked in the blood of our forefathers, who fought and died at Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and Trenton, Brandywine and Yorktown, so that their descendents could enjoy the natural rights of man, as well as the privileges of a free nation.
How do the authors of the Democratic platform propose to preserve our right when what they propose would destroy it? Where is their promised preservation? The only ideas laid out are gun-control efforts! This isn't even deceit. This is a bold promise to undo rights given by God and affirmed by the Court. In fact, where is the mention of the Heller decision in the Democratic platform? Instead of celebrating an affirmation of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the writers of the Democratic platform treat the Court's decision as something best not discussed in polite company.
For this reason, I believe it is the solemn duty of every Democrat to oppose this part of the Democratic platform. This document is not the final draft of the Democratic platform. Will the party officials listen to the voice of We the People, or will they bow before Senator Obama instead? Will they choose the opinion of one man over the rights of millions? Whose voice is louder, Barack Obama's or the American people's?
"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."
Obama used the "Chicago/Cheyenne" reference as recently as June, and this plank of the platform is almost an exact quote of Obama's double-talk when it comes to the Second Amendment. I know that parties rally around their candidate, but not at the expense of our inalienable rights. In my next post, I'll take a deeper look at what this plank in the Democratic platform really means.
Superintendent David Thweatt says the district's school building is about a half-hour drive from the local sheriff's office, and that leaves students and faculty defenseless.
Thweatt also took issue with "gun-free zones," telling the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "Why would you put it out there that a group of people can't defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog."
Isn't it great to see common sense from one of our educators? There's no doubt in my mind that the students of Harrold ISD are safer today than they were last school year, and that's something everyone should be proud of.
According to Inside Higher Ed, one researcher (who works with mice) had to help his children climb down a ladder from the second story of their home to escape after the firebomb exploded. And the site notes that back in February, masked animal rights terrorists broke into a professor's home during a birthday party for the teacher's daughter.
This is terrorism, pure and simple. And they aren't just targeting medical researchers. They've gone after hunters before, and I'm sure they'll target us again.
The FBI's now investigating the attacks at UC-Santa Cruz. I hope they catch these animal rights terrorists, and when they do, I hope they throw the book at them. Any criminal willing to take a human life for a lab rat ought to be treated like one- in prison for life.
Shawty and I'm very hot/
Toting forty cap, forty five nine's every glock/
Blow you up in that very spot you standing in/
Then vanishing/
Undo this mañana then, throw away this can and then/
Back to poppin' mo and blow and dro and money handlin'"
-T.I. "Hands Up"
Do these sound like the lyrics of someone who should be welcomed with open arms by D.C. politicians? It's unbelievable, but it's true. D.C. Councilwoman Yvette Alexander praised the rapper T.I. when he arrived in our nation's capitol as part of the "Respect My Vote" campaign.
Alexander told a local radio station that "we need the persons who really reach out to our young people in the community to let them know that voting is necessary, voting is cool, and your voice and your vote counts."
But Alexander didn't tell that radio station that T.I. is a convicted felon who has forfeited his right to vote because of his convictions for illegally buying machine guns, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and other charges. In a city plagued by violent crime, law-abiding gun owners are being vilified daily, but this guy is welcomed with open arms? Do you think this might be part of the reason why crime is so rampant in Washington, D.C.?
I expect we'll see Disney, Universal Studios and Georgia Pacific continue to claim that the law doesn't apply to them, despite the fact that legislators who voted for (and wrote) the measure say they never intended to exempt these businesses. It's up to the attorney general in Florida to ensure that these businesses are held to the same standard as everyone else in the state.
But the judge's decision in this case means that Right-to-Carry holders won't be disarmed by their employers, and that's a huge victory. Floridians can take heart that the court system is working, and that the NRA and the Unified Sportsmen of Florida will remain constantly vigilant in guarding your Second Amendment rights in the Sunshine State.
Let's take these three arguments one at a time. First of all, can you imagine doctors in charge of doling out First Amendment "privileges"? Perhaps a study from the CDC on the dangers of increased likelihood of heart attacks after listening to (or calling in to) talk radio shows? Americans would be outraged, just as they should be outraged at these doctors calling for restrictions on your Second Amendment rights as a matter of "public health."
The doctors misread the Constitution and the Supreme Court decision when they say there's no impediment to any kind of regulation of firearms. There's the little matter of "shall not be infringed," but there's also the Court's decision striking down D.C.'s gun ban.
And finally, logic does NOT tell us that increased gun ownership leads to increases in injury and death. As a matter of fact, accidental firearm fatalities have plummeted in this country, even while legal gun ownership has increased.
I have no idea how good these doctors may be when it comes to saving individual patients, but when it comes to diagnosing the Second Amendment, they're a bunch of quacks.
I'm not surprised these media companies would give free advertising to a gun-control group. After all, for years we've known the media hates gun owners. Still, if I were a gun owner in Philadelphia, I'd take a look at what other companies use Clear Channel Outdoors and Interstate Outdoor Advertising. I'd contact those companies and let them know I won't be doing business with them until the anti-gun billboards come down.
You'd think the mainstream media might take an interest in Alabama's relatively low crime rate compared to states with more gun control laws, but something tells me we won't see those numbers reported on the nightly news. Evidence that gun ownership and Right-to-Carry lowers violent crime? That doesn't fit the agenda of the mainstream media, even if it is the truth.
Last weekend, a two-time felon named Edwin Ramos allegedly killed Anthony Bologna and his two sons in a road-rage incident. Ramos was not only in this country illegally (which makes him ineligible to legally own a firearm), he's a two-time felon at the ripe old age of 21. Those two felonies came when he was a juvenile, but the city of San Francisco never referred the case to the federal government for deportation.
Rather than Gavin Newsome shouldering some responsibility for the city's lackadaisical attitude towards violent felons on the street, he decided to blame the nation's gun owners, saying:
"[The NRA is against] anything that restricts the opportunity for a guy who gets cut off in traffic from pulling out a handgun and almost assassinating an entire family, as was the case a few days ago in San Francisco, where three people were gunned down. That somehow that is appropriate and wonderful, and that person celebrated his freedom to carry a loaded pistol."
The NRA, it should go without saying, has always been in favor of strict enforcement of laws that punish the criminal misuse of firearms. We've always believed in ensuring convicted felons go to prison if they're caught with a gun. We, unlike Mayor Newsom, believe that laws should have meaning. Until the city changes its stance and insists that violent criminals are taken off the streets, then the residents of San Francisco will have to live and die with the consequences.
And with the deprivation of rights comes a lack of responsibility. How can you learn to be a responsible gun owner when the District wouldn't let anyone own a gun? Even now that the Heller decision's come down, the city leaders are working to ensure it will be as hard as possible to exercise your Second Amendment rights. Again, it's a shocking and shameful display of "leadership."
The NRA has always been our nation's leader in teaching safe and responsible gun ownership, and the residents of D.C. need our help. That's why today I'm seeking volunteers: NRA-certified firearms instructors who are willing and ready to go into D.C. and teach residents how to exercise their newly restored rights responsibly. We'll hold as many classes as we need to in order to ensure that residents who want to own a gun know how to keep and bear it safely.
I also want to bring the Eddie Eagle gun safety program into each and every one of D.C.'s elementary schools, and I'm going to ask Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee to meet with me in order to put a plan of action together. Let's make sure that every elementary child in D.C. knows what to do in case they come across an unsecured firearm: Stop. Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.
Anti-gun politicians and gun-control groups haven't done anything to help the residents of D.C. become responsible gun owners, which is what we've come to expect. Once again, the members of the NRA stand ready to help educate and train the law-abiding Americans who want to responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The local government in D.C. says that semi-automatic handguns will still be banned under the District's definition of a "machine gun," and also says that the storage requirement will remain on the books, with one exception: "while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner's home." In other words, you are required to keep your gun unloaded and locked away until a criminal has entered your home. Only then can you exercise your right of self-defense.
It gets worse: In order to legally register your handgun in the District, you'll be required to make five separate trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, and at least two separate trips to a federally licensed firearms dealer. Good luck trying to do it on your lunch hour. It's not only impossible, it's almost a guarantee that anyone attempting to exercise their constitutional rights in the District would have to use a week of vacation time to jump through the hurdles the local politicians put in place. It's almost a certainty that those wanting to become legal gun owners will have to spend more time at the police station than someone arrested for violating the District's gun laws.
What does that say about the politicians in the District and their respect for the Constitution? What does it say about the politicians in the District and their respect for their constituents?
Not many people know the name Bob Rogers, or the name of his company, BRC Imagination Arts, but they are among the leaders in designing exhibits for museums and theme parks. And according to Rogers, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois, is gun-free on purpose.
In Andrew Ferguson's book, Land of Lincoln, Rogers is quoted as saying, "We made a conscious decision that we did not want to glorify war, and we did not want to glorify the mechanics of war." Set aside the argument that the men who fought and died to preserve the Union should be glorified. The fact is, Bob Rogers believes historical artifacts have no place in a museum if they don't fit the narrative he wants to create.
Can a gun-free retelling of the Revolutionary War be far behind? Will “The Shot Heard ‘Round The World” be changed to "The Shout Heard 'Round the World"? Will Lexington and Concord be portrayed not as battles for our independence … just spirited debates?
Our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an indelible part of our history. To ignore it isn't just politically correct, it's intellectually moronic.
All of these things are true, and they're just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama's long anti-gun record.
NRA-ILA has put together a fact sheet, complete with citations that you can use to educate yourself and others on Senator Obama's rejection of the Second Amendment. It's vitally important that every gun owner knows the truth about Obama's position, and I want you to spread the word. Can you imagine the havoc that anti-gunners could impose on the United States with an anti-gun president and stalwart allies controlling both chambers of Congress?
Get informed and get active, and make sure every gun owner you know has heard the truth. The future of our freedoms depends on it.
The truth is, of course, that there is no shame in hunting, and our ancestors knew that. Without the hunt, humans would not have survived. I'm not an anthropologist, but I'd be shocked if the post-hunt rituals of the earliest humans were based on atonement, rather than thanksgiving.
There's no shame in being a gun owner, either. James Carroll might not be a writer for an independent Boston newspaper if it weren't for a ragtag band of citizens who took on the British. I suggest that Carroll take a drive out to Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to think about history. Our Founding Fathers didn't relish having to use arms to gain their freedom, but they certainly weren't ashamed of the guns they owned and used.
It's another pathetic attempt to demonize gun owners, and I'm sure we'll see many more now that the Heller decision has been released. After all, we know the gun control crowd can be pretty shameless themselves.
Before I get into Obama's record, I've gotta point out that the blog's author has no problem smearing the NRA. He accuses the NRA of "protecting gun companies' sales to gang bangers and criminals" and "protecting the right of criminals to have easy access to automatic weapons and high-kill rate ammunition." He even accuses the NRA of "protecting gun and ammunition sales to the Mexican drug cartels."
They're ridiculous charges, hardly worth mentioning except for the fact that this author believes the NRA is "smearing" Barack Obama by pointing out his anti-gun record. We use facts. We use Obama's voting record and his statements to the press and his supporters. When this blogger smears the NRA, he can only use innuendo and lies.
So here's the truth: The NRA isn't out to protect gang members, drug cartels or any other violent criminal. We believe that the answer to dealing with those lawbreakers is to vigorously enforce the existing laws and throw these people behind bars. We don't believe passing another gun control law designed to impact the law-abiding will help reduce criminal behavior.
The NRA stands by its statements about Barack Obama's Second Amendment record. Click the link above and see for yourself. Barack Obama is as anti-gun as they come, and that's no smear. It's just what they didn't tell you today.
The District's ban on semi-automatic firearms is still there. The District is now proposing a test of 20 multiple-choice questions that will have to be correctly answered before a license is given. And the District says those applying for a license "must not suffer from a physical defect which
would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly." These are just a few of the new hoops and hurdles residents of D.C. will have to jump through before exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Do we test individuals before they can speak freely? Do we deny a physically disabled person their ability to worship as they please? Do we charge people a fee in order for them to exercise their right to vote (which isn't even an enumerated right)? Of course not. I think the District should go back to the drawing board with their new proposals for gun ownership, because these regulations aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
This is one of the new battles that will be fought. For decades, our opponents have denied that we have a right to keep and bear arms. Now they'll belittle that right, trying to relegate it to the dustbin of history … a right we have, but no longer have any use for. They may not attempt to repeal the Second Amendment, as the Chicago Tribune suggested. They don't need to. Anti-gun politicians can throw up as many roadblocks as they deem necessary to the security of their state.
When they do, we'll challenge them. From the courthouse to the statehouse, we will continue to push for the preservation and restoration of our constitutional right, and we won't stop until we've won. To do any less is a dereliction of the duty we have as Americans to keep our liberty strong.
When the project was announced in Boston late last year, it was met with a storm of protests. A few months later, Washington, D.C., announced it would be conducting a similar program, and that city was greeted with protests as well. Now it's Oakland's turn to hear from angry citizens, and like Boston and D.C., Oakland is backing off.
Now all three cities say they won't send officers door to door, but will instead send officers out to search a person's home if they request it. So far, police in Boston and D.C. are still waiting for someone to call and ask to have their home searched.
The politicians will no doubt still call this program a success, even though citizens have always been able to ask the police to search their homes for whatever reason they want. The real story is that residents in Boston, D.C. and now Oakland are standing up for their constitutional rights. If they're standing up for the Fourth Amendment, it gives me hope that more of them will start standing up for their Second Amendment rights as well.
A bill in California's State Senate would prohibit the private transfer of more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month between individuals, even friends or family. I suspect we'll see more attacks on the Second Amendment using the back door of ammunition registration, purchase limits, and even serialization in the months ahead.
California's bill, known as AB2062, would also require that anyone purchasing ammunition submit to a fingerprinting, and records of your ammunition purchase would be sent to a statewide database administered by California's Department of Justice.
Bills like this don't do anything to reduce violent crime, but they most certainly will add to the size of government and send yet another message to the law-abiding gun owners of California: you're not welcome here. Isn't it time the criminals got that message instead of us?
Thursday, June 26, 2008, will go down in history ... not as the day that the Supreme Court found a new right, but the day the Court recognized an ancient and unalienable right. The right to keep and bear arms has been with us since before the founding of this great nation. The dedication and perseverance of millions of American gun owners paid off when five justices agreed that not only does the Second Amendment protect our right to own and use firearms, but that we have a basic right of self-defense as well. The importance of the Heller decision cannot be overstated. Because of it, Americans across this country now know their right to own a gun is just as real and important as their right to speak freely or to worship God without government approval.
With the Supreme Court's monumental ruling in the Heller case, gun owners aren't going to rest. Armed with the judicial recognition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for any lawful purpose, we're taking the fight to the cities that have denied residents their Second Amendment rights. We're going after Chicago and those suburbs that have banned handguns. We're going after San Francisco and their laws that block Americans in poverty from owning a firearm. We're going after New York's licensing laws that allow the rich to exercise their rights, while telling working-class men and women that the Second Amendment is not for them.
We're not just going to cling to our recognized right to keep and bear arms, we're going to embrace it. We're going to make sure our right is strong, not out of arrogance, but out of concern that the fragile 5-4 decision could be ripped apart by lower court rulings, legislative overreach, and local politicians who put their elected office over the constitutional rights of their constituents.
We have to prepare for the other side to go after us, as well. The Court ruled that they may find some gun-control laws acceptable. Our opponents will try to exploit the language of the Heller decision for their own gain. Some are claiming that the court's decision was actually a victory for gun-control supporters. With our continued push, we'll make sure they're wrong ... again.
It looks to be a phenomal day for gun owners and District of Columbia residents.
Our Founding Fathers wrote this as an individual right, they intended it to be an individual right, and the Court is now acknowledging that right.
It's a historic day for us as gun owners and us as Americans. As we read the decision we'll know much more about how Heller will impact gun owners around the nation.
The next step is to ensure that every American has access to this right, no matter where they live. This court decision, I believe, will help us get there.
In recent days, GOP presidential candidate John McCain has highlighted Barack Obama's comments about small-town Americans "clinging" to guns and religion. Senator McCain's comments, though, have a different spin. In Arlington, Virginia, for instance, McCain said: "I know why [residents of small towns] embrace their constitutional rights, and why they embrace their religious beliefs, and it's because they're fundamentally good and decent people. "
By referencing our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, John McCain demonstrates an understanding of this issue that has continued to escape Barack Obama. Americans don’t "cling" to their guns out of bitterness. They fight to preserve their constitutional liberties because they love this country.
If Barack Obama wants to believe that gun owners are simply bitter...he should remember something else. We're voters too, and we don't support those who believe in Chicago-style gun control.
The United Nations, which will be meeting next month to try and push for more global gun restrictions, isn't content to try and remove the Second Amendment from our Bill of Rights.Now the UN says Britain's monarchy should be abolished.
While I'd love to see a Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) for our British cousins, the United Nations Human Rights Commission must have more important issues. Even the British TaxPayers' Alliance says "the UN should be busy reporting on issues of starvation, execution and the denial of the vote to huge numbers of people around the world." The UN is never too busy to try and change the world. It's just that it's safer to try and change Great Britain and the United States than it is to try and change Sudan, China, North Korea or Iran.
Doesn't sound like the United States of America, does it?
Of course not, because this is Washington, D.C., we're talking about. A place that defies Second Amendment rights will defy any other rights it chooses.
Crime is out of control in Washington, D.C. There's no doubt about that. Law enforcement should be viewed with trust and respect, not fear and suspicion.
We can start that process by scrapping Police Chief Lanier's plan and treating the residents of D.C. like they're citizens of the city, not property of the State.
Matt Gray from Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety says, "It makes it safer for everyone who's inside the prison system, both the inmates, the staff members - the correctional custody staff."
I guess Mr. Gray doesn't mind the fact that this proposal won't make it any safer for people outside the prison system. He doesn't say anything about the fact that county jails are already overcrowded as well, and simply moving state inmates to those facilities means more criminals out on the street before they've served their sentence.
More criminals on the street will overburden the state's parole system, allowing more felons to fall through the cracks. That, in turn, will lead to more crime with no place to house those re-offenders.
If the problem is overcrowding, the simple solution is to build more prisons. Yes, it's expensive, but compared to the alternative it seems like the safest answer. Most people I know would rather pay with more dollars than pay with more lives.
Assistant Police Chief Diane Groomes told the press, "We need to get the guns out of people's hands," despite the fact that one of the people killed over the weekend was stabbed to death.
It's not a matter of gangs of guns wandering the streets of Washington, D.C. It's a matter of gangs of people with evil intent. The police chief, assistant chief and mayor in D.C. want to get rid of the guns. They've been trying for thirty years, and they're still presiding over one of the most violent cities in the country.
If you don't deal with the criminal, then you're not dealing with the criminal activity. It's as simple as that.
Miller says that sport shooting "directly results in people being shot and killed on the streets." As you can imagine, the few gun owners that remain in Toronto are angry that their mayor is accusing them of being accessories to murder.
Olympic shooter Avianna Chao, who will represent Canada in Beijing this summer, says the news "knocked the wind" out of her.
Frankly, it should not have come as a surprise to her. Mayor Miller has always treated law-abiding gun owners as the real problem. Until he recognizes that the criminals are the problem, people like Avianna Chao will continue to be targeted for extinction.
Those critics should take a look at what happened in the town of Winnemucca, Nevada, not long ago. It was about 2:30 in the morning when Ernesto Villagomez walked in to the Players Bar and Grill and began shooting. He killed two men and wounded several others. But when Villagomez stopped to reload, a customer in the restaurant used his legally owned firearm to stop the killer.
That customer is a Right-to-Carry holder who was in the right place at the right time. He didn't make that restaurant more dangerous. He saved lives.
Send this story to every Georgian you know. They won't hear it from a media too afraid of firearms to cover the issue fairly, but the citizens of Georgia deserve to know the truth about Right-to-Carry.
When was the last time you heard an elected official talk about a government out of control? When was the last time you heard a politician share the stories of law-abiding gun owners disarmed by the very government sworn to protect them?
Governor Bobby Jindal understands what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He knows the righteous anger of a man who sees the bureaucracy fail us in a time of emergency. He knows it because he feels it. He's lived it.
The NRA has been working to return the guns to the law-abiding gun owners who were disarmed, and soon we will have our day in court. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and his police commissioner Warren Riley will have to face their accusers, the very people they left helpless. And the NRA will win this fight, like we've won so many others.
When Katrina hit, Bobby Jindal wasn't governor of Louisiana. Now he is, and he's told us that what happened after the hurricane hit will never happen again. Not on his watch. Never again.